http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/select/1098/int.html
DEERING: Whatever happens, the Web will be kept working; it's the dominant
application. What we're seeing is people proposing new applications built on
top of HTTP, because it goes through the firewalls or it's universally
available, and, in fact, IP gets relegated to a single roll as a layer 2
technology. HTTP is the universal connectivity.
Concerning your [Postel's] comment about filling up the space, there is this
story about an experiment with an infinite number of monkeys with an
infinite number of typewriters generating the works of Shakespeare. Well,
we've done the experiment; we've deployed an infinite number of typewriters
and what they're [generating] is protocol specs.
CERF: We're getting the Shakespearean equivalent of "To be or not to be,
that is the grzzornay."
----- Original Message -----
From: "Melinda Shore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "grenville armitage" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2001 7:28 AM
Subject: Re: "I am a strong believer in the democratic process."
> > From: grenville armitage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Surely you mean that the truth has become a lie. Perhaps because
> > people are no longer holding WGs to the goal of running code, but
> > rather pandering to pressure for some 'democratic process'. Tyranny
> > of the masses rarely leads to excellence.
>
> "Tyranny of the masses" *would* be democracy, but there
> seems to be continued support for doing what people are
> calling "consensus." Nevertheless, I don't think that
> what we're doing here could be considered consensus process
> according to any reasonable definition of the term.
> Consensus really is about process rather than product,
> and it requires investment in the process from all
> participants, which we certainly do not have here.
> Unilateralism, unwillingness to compromise, insults and
> derogation, and widespread weenie-waving work against
> consensus pretty much by definition. What we seem to
> be working towards instead is rough agreement - not the
> same thing as rough consensus. I don't think consensus
> is possible at the IETF, but it's interesting to
> consider whether or not we'd get better results if
> participants were more open.
>
> There's not a lot of printed material on consensus, but
> Michael Sheeran's "Beyond Majority Rule" is quite good.
>
> Melinda
>
>
